PAUL'S TESTIMONY.

S already stated, no one but a fool or a mad- "L man denies that Jesus of Nazareth lived and died. It would show far more sense to deny that Alexander, Hannibal or Caesar, that Socrates, Plato or Aristotle lived, for there is not a tithe of the evidence for their existence which can be furnished to establish the fact that He, in whom millions of the best and most intelligent people on earth during eighteen centuries have trusted as their Saviour, once walked among men, and suffered upon the cross. Hence infidelity, unless it is willing to disclaim all appearance of common honesty, is forced to meet the question, "hat became of His body?

Happily those who are really anxious to know the truth may be helped towards a satisfactory answer by the perusal of two or three ancient documents, the authorship of which is conceded by all skeptics, who have the least pretension to scholarship. These documents are known as the epistles to the Romans, to the Corinthians, and to the Galatians.) Upon that to the Romans Dean Alford says, ''This epistle has been universally believed to be the genuine production of the Apostle Paul. Neither the Judaizing sects of old, who rejected the Pauline Epistles, nor the skeptical critics of modern Germany, have doubted this." Upon the epistle to the Corinthians he remarks, ''As far as I am aware [and, remember, the range of his learning was almost boundless] the first of these epistles has never been doubted by any critic of note. Indeed he who would do so, must be prepared to dispute the historical truth of the character of St. Paul." Upon the one to the Galatians he declares, "as Windischmann observes, whoever is prepared to deny the genuineness of this Epistle, would pronounce on himself the sentence of incapacity to distinguish true from false. Accordingly its authorship has never been doubted."

With these words of the Christian expositor Baur, Strauss, and Renan would cordially agree. The last named says, ''Paul has left elaborate works, and none of the writings of the other apostles can dispute the palm with his in either importance, or authenticity. . . . Though written for the most part between the years 53 and 62, the epistles of St. Paul are replete with information about the first years of Christianity." Again he says, ''I would refer to a prominent passage in St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5-8), which establishes — first, the reality of the apparitions or appearances of Christ. "Strauss also accepts without hesitation the authenticity and genuineness of the epistle to the Corinthians, and tells us that "the earliest writer who gives us any accurate information as to how the belief in the resurrection of Jesus arose among his disciples is the Apostle Paul;" and again, "if we ask when and where the disciples of Jesus saw these apparitions, the most ancient witness, the Apostle Paul, gives us, as we have already mentioned, little or no assistance towards arriving at a result."

It is well, however, to inquire what this most ancient witness testifies in a document of which he is the acknowledged author. ''Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;" or in other words, he is about to define and explain the meaning of the gospel, or that which is essential to the gospel. ''For I delivered unto you first of all [not only first in point of time, but first in point of importance, as ever placed in the fore-front of all his preaching] that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." The creed, therefore, upon which he insists as embracing the gospel is very brief and simple, but it is of immense moment and significance — ''Christ died; Christ was buried; Christ rose again the third day."

He then proceeds to cite his witnesses of this fundamental, indispensable, and indisputable fact of Christ's real resurrection. "He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of about five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present [about twenty-four or twenty-five years after the resurrection], but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time." Or as he says in another place in this same authentic epistle, when defending himself against some in the Corinthian Church, who had denied his apostolic authority, "Am I not an apostle, am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. ix. 1).

But he goes on to show that the literal resurrection of Jesus vitally touches the very existence of Christianity itself. "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept," (1 Cor. xv. 1-20).

It will be observed that the main point of the apostle's argument in this passage is not the resurrection of Christ, but the resurrection of Christians. He does not assert and prove the former, except as it has a direct and altogether essential bearing on the latter. There were some in the Corinthian Church who were weak enough to deny the literal resurrection of their own bodies, owing to scientific objections, or to the mystery connected with it, or to other difficulties in the way of its accomplishment. To these the apostle addresses himself in terms of earnest admonition and indignant rebuke, as he sets forth seven inevitable and tremendous consequences of rejecting the truth which they had foolishly been led to doubt. First, if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen. Second, if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and it is utterly useless to go forward with the work of proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation. Third, if Christ be not risen, your faith is also vain, for there is no divine person on whom it can rest. Fourth, yea, and we are found false witnesses of God, not only false witnesses, but false witnesses concerning God, and therefore the greatest liars that have ever lived. Fifth, ye are yet in your sins, and must remain in them under a righteous condemnation while eternity endures. Sixth, the dear ones from whom you parted on their dying bed, and whose departure made your heart strings strain as if they would break, have perished forever. Seventh, we are of all men most miserable, because we are forced to endure the loss of all things for the present, and have no hope for the future.

Then recoiling from the horrible results of denying the resurrection of the dead, as involving the denial of the resurrection of Jesus, he exclaims in a lofty burst of praise and triumph and positive testimony and cloudless assurance, '' Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept." Of this glorious fact he summons as witnesses the apostle Peter, then the twelve apostles, then the greater part of five hundred brethren, appealing to them, it will be observed when they were yet alive, and when therefore it would be easy to impeach his testimony if false, then the apostle James, then all of the apostles again, and finally himself. It is a great mistake to suppose that when he says, ''I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received," he means that he received the gospel, embracing the death and burial and resurrection of Christ, from the other apostles. As he writes in a preceding part of this same authentic epistle, "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you" concerning the Lord's Supper, that '' as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come," (1 Cor. xi. 23-26). Or as he says in another authentic epistle, ''I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ," (Gal. i. 11, 12).

He declares, therefore, that it was directly from Christ he received the gospel, which is summed up in the death and burial and resurrection of Jesus; and hence it is simply impossible to explain his belief in the resurrection, and his constant proclamation of it in all of his preaching, upon the swoon theory of Paulus, the myth theory of Strauss, the legendary theory of Renan, or the apparition theory of Keim. Either Paul distinctly saw, and repeatedly conversed with Jesus, after the resurrection, or he was the most egregious liar who has ever written a line, although his lie has been more fruitful of good than any truth yet discovered.

Strauss has so effectually disposed of the swoon theory that his argument is worth repeating. '' It is quite evident," he says, what this view of the resurrection of Jesus, apart from the difficulties in which it is involved, does not even solve the problem which is here under consideration: the origin, that is, of the Christian Church by faith in the miraculous resurrection of the Messiah. It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening, and indulgence, could have given to the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life — an impression that lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression he had made upon them in life and death — at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship."

But how much better is the theory of Strauss himself, when he says, v." Thus the faith in Jesus as the Messiah, which by his violent death had received an apparently fatal shock, was subjectively restored, by the instrumentality of the mind, thfi power of imagination, and nervous excitement!" Let us see how much the power of imagination, and nervous excitement, had to do with the faith of a man, whom he calls ''the most ancient witness," and three of whose epistles he acknowledges to be genuine. The most of this man's life we gather from a book of which Renan says, ''There can be no doubt that the Acts of the Apostles were written by the author of the third Gospel [Luke], and form a continuation of that work. It is not necessary to stop and prove this proposition, which has never been seriously contested." Perhaps it may be as well to add that "the Rev. William Kirk Hobart, LL.D. of Trinity College, Dublin, in his book called The Medical Language of St. Luke, finds that Luke, in the third gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles used a great many words both simple and compound, and also many peculiar phrases, or forms of expression, which are not found in the other Evangelists, or even in the classical writers of his day. He examined, likewise, the works of medical writers from the time of Hippocrates to that of Galen, and he adduces evidence that these writers habitually use the same distinctive words and phrases," another proof, by the way of the undesigned coincidences with which the Ncav Testament abounds, and of the truthfulness of Paul when he speaks of Luke as ''the beloved physician," (Col. iv. 14).

It may be well also to quote the language of Rawlinson, the distinguished Oriental historian, concerning the myth theory: " In no single respect — if we except the fact that it is miraculous — has that story a mythical character. It is a single story, told without variations; whereas myths are fluctuating and multiform: it is blended inextricably with the civil history of the times, which it every where reports with extraordinary accuracy; whereas myths distort or supersede civil history: it is full of prosaic detail, which myths studiously eschew: it abounds with practical instruction of the simplest and purest kind; whereas myths teach by allegory. Even in its miraculous element it stands to some extent in contrast with all mythologies, where the marvellous has ever a predominant character of grotesqueness which is absent from New Testament miracles. [This Strauss himself admits]. Simple earnestness, fidelity, painstaking accuracy, pure love of truth, are the most patent characteristics of the New Testament writers, who evidently deal with facts, not with fancies, and are employed in relating a history, not in developing an idea. They write that 'we may know the certainty of the things which are most surely believed' in their day. They 'bear record of what they have seen and heard.' I know not how stronger words could have been used to prevent the notion of that plastic, growing myth which Strauss conceives to have been in apostolic times." Turning now to the account which the beloved physician gives of Paul's conversion, he testifies that when the apostle was known as Saul of Tarsus, he took a prominent part in the death of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, that "he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women, committed them to prison," that "Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, and desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that, if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [The words which follow in the common text, 'It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks,' are without any authority whatever from the Greek MSS., says the Revised Version. They were put in here by Erasmus]. And he trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him. Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." The narrative then relates his entrance into the city, his continuance three days without sight and without food, the visit of one Ananias to him, and his baptism; " and straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God," (Acts ix. 1-20).

About twenty-five years after the event here recorded, we see Paul standing on the stairs of the Roman Castle in Jerusalem, and addressing his infuriated countrymen as follows: " Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence, which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith). I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, yet brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou. Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, what shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me. Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood, and said unto me. Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said. The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men, of what thou hast seen and heard," (Acts xxii. 1-15).

Two years later, during the whole of which time the apostle was in prison, we find him making his defence before King Agrippa, who had come to Cæsarea to pay his respects to Governor Festus, the representative of the Roman Emperor from whom Agrippa derived his power to reign. He was called Agrippa the Second or Younger, " to distinguish him from his father, Agrippa the First, always called Herod in the Acts of the Apostles, whose miserable end is recorded in chap. xii. 23. When that event took place, the Emperor Claudius, the friend and patron of the younger Agrippa, who had been brought up at Rome, was dissuaded by his counsellors from giving to a youth of seventeen the whole dominion of his father, but bestowed upon him the kingdom of Chalcis which had belonged to his uncle Herod, and afterwards gave him the tetrarchate of his uncle Philip, with certain parts of Galilee and Perea, with the royal title. To this was eventually added the guardianship of the temple, the keeping of the sacred vestments, and the right of nominating the High Priest. Here again the writer's truthfulness and knowledge of his subject are evinced by the precision and the confidence with which he steers through all these complicated changes without once committing even an anachronism or misnomer. Three times, in the course of the New Testament history, we find a Herod on the throne, yet always with some variation in the circumstances, which would have proved a snare to afictitious writer," (Dr. J. A. Alexander).

Thus it occurred that Agrippa, although a King, was without jurisdiction in Cæsarea, and was only a visitor to Festus, who spoke to him of his remarkable prisoner, and he in turn expressed a desire to see and hear him. Leaving out the courteous and graceful opening of the apostle's address, which has always excited the admiration of literary men by its skill and elegance of diction, we come at once to the gist of his defence: "I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities. Whereupon as I went to Damascus, with authority and commission from the chief priests, at midday, King, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou. Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." Then follows his commission to preach the gospel, and he adds, " Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: that Christ should suffer; and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus ] but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds," (Acts xxvi.).

There are two other appearances of the risen Jesus to Paul recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, one in chapter xviii., and the other in chapter xxiii. But upon these it is needless to dwell, for if his testimony concerning the appearance on the road to Damascus is not believed, neither would his assertion of subsequent manifestations be received. It is conceded, however by all that up to that eventful journey, he was a savage and unrelenting foe of Jesus and His disciples. Previous to that time, therefore, he could not have been pre-disposed to accept the claims of the crucified One, and hence every fair-minded man will confess that he is compelled to account, in some rational way, for his sudden and remarkable conversion.